[jules101]

---

North is declarer in 4♥, and currently has 7 tricks. Here is the four card ending.

Declarer is on lead, and says...

"I'm playing Q♦ which will fell the Jack, and then just tables his last three cards T9♦ and 9♥ (implying all were winners) OK?"

Not statement is made about trump (eg no statement such as "I'll just play my ♦ and you can take your winner whenever you like"), so it is clear declarer is not aware there is a trump outstanding.

Neither is declarer aware that West is holding the boss trump rather than a small one.

Once the claim is contested North says happy to lose a trump trick.

TD is called and asked to adjudicate.


Assuming West doesn't ruff Q!d, and declarer thinks all his cards are good could TD suggest that he plays 9!h next. This would lose to T!h and when a spade is returned then EW score the last three tricks.

Declarer says it would be illogical for his to play the trump first as he can't be forced to play in "careless manner".

But given his counting and also his claim were both careless can he also be asked to play in careless manner?

Now that he is alerted to the fact that there is a trump outstanding then perhaps it would be logical for him to play 9!h in order to pull the remaining trump if he thinks it might be smaller than his? That way he would still make 11 tricks rather than ten!


You - as TD - have to decide how many tricks declarer is entitled to.

a) Allowing him to continue playing ♦ until West ruffs. Declarer can regain the lead and win remaining tricks. = 10 tricks.

b) Assuming West doesn't ruff Q♦, and declarer is now obliged to play his trump then he loses the final three tricks. = 8 tricks.

Which will it be?

[blackshoe]

Declarer has complied with Law 68C: A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. He has stated this order: ♦Q, ♦10, ♦9, ♥9. That is his line of play. If West trumps any of the diamonds tricks, he will perforce lead a black card. It would be absurd (and contrary to law) to rule that declarer cannot ruff this lead. It would be contrary to law to throw out declarer's line of play and rule that he leads the ♥9 on any trick prior to trick 13.

One trick to the defense. 4♥ making four. Next hand!

[jules101]

Sorry - perhaps I phrased his (mis)claim wrongly.

He said he plays Q♦ felling the Jack.

And then tabled his last three cards suggesting all were winners.

He didn't state in which order he would play this three cards, but implied all were winners.

I've edited the original post to make this more clear (I hope!).


At this point the claim is contested, so he THEN states he'll play on ♦ and will lose a trump (but he has not idea which trump it is).

[nige1]

Did declarer imply that he would play diamonds first? Unfortunately this comes down to director-judgement. In practice, his decision could go either way, depending on his opinion of the claimer and of the claimer's argument. The ruling is bound to leave one side or the other unhappy.

Rules require judgement but I think that Bridge-rules should rely on director judgement as little as possible -- because it results in contentious and incomprehensible rulings.

In particular I feel that claim-rules could be more simply framed so that there would be less need for director judgement

[blackshoe]

Well, if he didn't state a clear line of play, and just laid his last three cards on the table, that does imply he thought all were winners. Would it be "normal", but "careless" or "inferior", to play his trump earlier than trick 13? Sure. Does he think all his tricks are good? It seems so. In this case, I would probably rule that he might lead his trump at trick 11. In that case it looks like the defense gets the last three tricks. Down 2. If declarer doesn't like that, maybe he'll remember to state a clear line of play next time.

[RMB1]

jules101, on 2017-August-18, 18:08, said:

Declarer says ... he can't be forced to play in "careless manner".

Declarer can be presumed to play normally, which includes careless.

[lamford]

This looks an easy one; declarer continues with the nine of hearts, and loses the last four tricks. If the missing heart was the eight, that would be best play, so, given that he is unaware of the missing trump, this line is just careless.

If we swap the nine and ten of hearts, then it is one trick to the defenders, as it is just careless not to draw the missing trump.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-August-19, 08:15, said:

This looks an easy one; declarer continues with the nine of hearts, and loses the last four tricks. If the missing heart was the eight, that would be best play, so, given that he is unaware of the missing trump, this line is just careless.

If we swap the nine and ten of hearts, then it is one trick to the defenders, as it is just careless not to draw the missing trump.

Not four. Three. Assuming West doesn't trump the ♦Q.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-August-19, 08:15, said:

This looks an easy one; declarer continues with the nine of hearts, and loses the last four tricks.

The ruling is easy, but as a much-maligned Barbie once said, "math is hard". After he plays the ♦Q, there are only 3 tricks left to lose.